Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA-v02 Last Call Comment: Application Server Redundancy

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 17:19:56 -0600

Requirements are placed on performance and defined on performance.
Performance is outside the scope of the RFC.  The offending
passage is:

1.4.4.1 Application Server Redundancy

   ...

   The failover model supports an "n+k" redundancy model, where "n" ASPs
   is the number of redundant ASPs required to handle traffic and "k"
   ASPs are available to take over for a failed or unavailable ASP.
   Traffic SHOULD be sent after "n" ASPs are active. "k" ASPs MAY be
   either active at the same time as "n" or kept inactive until needed
   due to a failed or unavailable ASP.

""n" ASPSs is the number of redundant ASPs required to handle traffic"

and

"Traffic SHOULD be sent after "n" ASPs are active."

place the requirement SHOULD on a peformance related metric.  Replace
SHOULD with MAY or remove the requirement.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:35:26 -0400

Brian,

I think what you suggest would bring us again to the beginning of n+k
discussion -which I thought is concluded- and would be against the result of
those discussions.

    Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 7:20 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA-v02 Last Call Comment: Application Server
> Redundancy
>
>

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:46:57 -0600

Tolga,

No, not concluded.  It was just pointlesst to discuss further until someone
attempted to advance the proposal to RFC.  Take a look at ETSI TS 102 141,
142, 143, 144 and ask yourself if 'n' has any meaning to a standards body.

--brian

Tolga Asveren wrote:                                                                 (Mon, 10 May 2004 08:35:26)

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/